A new law in Kansas that criminalizes the enforcement of federal gun controls in the state is unconstitutional, Attorney General Eric H. Holder said.

In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, [the law] directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional, Mr. Holder wrote to Gov. Sam Brownback in a letter dated April 26. Federal officers who are responsible for enforcing federal laws and regulations in order to maintain public safety cannot be forced to choose between the risk of a criminal prosecution by a state and the continued performance of their federal duties.

Mr. Holder cites the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says federal law trumps conflicting state authority or exercise of power. Kansass law became effective April 25.

Federal officers who are responsible for enforcing federal laws and regulations in order to maintain public safety cannot be forced to choose between the risk of a criminal prosecution by a state and the continued performance of their federal duties.

Simple answer: Stay the F out of our state!

6
posted on 05/02/2013 10:39:55 AM PDT
by Feckless
(I was trained by the US << This Tagline Censored by FR >> ain't that irOnic?)

Since when has Holder ever been concerned with the Constitution, and isn’t up to the Supreme Court to ultimately determine if a law is Constitutional? If Holder ever start enforcing all our current laws as required under the Constitution I’ll start to pay attention to him, but that day will never happen with this racist.

14
posted on 05/02/2013 10:41:59 AM PDT
by Mastador1
(I'll take a bad dog over a good politician any day!)

Last I heard the supremes were the ones to determine the unconstitutionality or not of laws, not some borderline incompetent affirmative action hack from the executive branch, talking more about his bosses executive orders and departmental policies than actual laws.

Holder can take the Supremacy Clause and shove it up his Obama.
Only valid federal laws enacted pursuant to enumerated powers under the Constitution, with the Tenth Amendment as a backdrop, are supreme.
The left has been claiming supremacy for the Feds to do whatever they want to whoever they want under their misguided interpretation of the Constitution.
I’m a lawyer and I know full well how this plays out. That said, states need to STOP trying to fight the federal government by playing by their rules on their turf. Just tell them to STFU and hold your ground.
Don’t try to litigate in a federal court expecting a fair shake.
That is one of the many reasons the 17th Amendment was such a horrible idea.
Imagine all federal judges having to be confirmed by a body (senate) comprised of essentially embassadors from each state to represent the states best interest. The all powerful commerce clause (presently in question) would not be what it is today, and the Tenth Amendment would carry a lot if weight.
The 17th Amendment took a brilliant concept by the founders and twisted it beyond repair.
Now in the legislative brach we simply have the same pigs kept in two separate pens.
It should be one body to quickly act on behalf of the people, knowing that reelection is just around the corner.
Then a completely separate body that is there to slowly deliberate and advocate for the interest of their state.
That’s what would have stopped all the nonsense since the 17th A was adopted.

26
posted on 05/02/2013 10:49:48 AM PDT
by Clump
( the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)

Federal officers who are responsible for enforcing federal laws and regulations in order to maintain public safety cannot be forced to choose between the risk of a criminal prosecution by a state and the continued performance of their federal duties.

I’m not anxious to see CW-II started, but I’ll do my part to bring it to a swift end. Kansas is as good a place as any to stand ground.

I was against the first Iraq war being started, but as soon as it did start, I was participating in the “support our troops” marches with the attitude of, “now we are there. Let’s win this thing with all speed and get our guys home.”

We as conservatives need to start arguing for policies as if there were no Constitution. Because, in reality, there is not one.

When debating with liberals you don't want to bring up the constitution because it will only be used as a weapon against those who respect it by those who don't. They will be more than happy to use it to score political points and then abandon it when it is no longer useful.

They will twist the 4th amendment or the 1st amendment or the 14th amendment to mean some new thing that it didn't mean at the time it was written. Then when a conservative points out exactly what it says in the 2nd amendment, the liberal will say, "Well, the constitution is outdated and doesn't really apply any more."

In any debate, you need to first agree on the principals and then argue why the principals endorse your position and refute your opponents position.

It used to be we all agreed that the constitution, the way it was written, was supreme and sovereign. It was entirely appropriate to use it in an argument. That is no longer the case. We now have to back up a few steps in our argument and use other principals which are agreed upon. (if there are any)

38
posted on 05/02/2013 11:05:35 AM PDT
by nitzy
(You can avoid reality but you can't avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.)

New York law now prohibits me from loading more than 7 rounds of ammo in a magazine for my semi-auto pistols. Federal law has no such limitation. Since the two laws conflict, does that mean that I can ignore New York law?

“Federal officers who are responsible for enforcing federal laws and regulations in order to maintain public safety cannot be forced to choose between the risk of a criminal prosecution by a state and the continued performance of their federal duties.
Simple answer: Stay the F out of our state!”

In a SANE United States, the SCOTUS would rule that ANY INFRINGEMENT ON A CITIZEN'S 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS is Unconstitutional. Therefore, Eric Holder, YOU have no authority to VIOLATE INALIENABLE RIGHTS.

Our Forefathers didn't make the 2nd Amendment CONDITIONAL AS OUR GOV'T IS DOING NOW. If anyone with depression be deemed banned from owning a firearm, THEN THE FEDS WOULD SIMPLY DEEM EVERYONE DEPRESSED. It's INALIENABLE, meaning 'CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY'.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.